Most Liberal Part of New York Times is Liberal Use of Censorship

My original intention was to seed a few links from the New York Times Examiner who critiques the coverage of what is billed as America's liberal media icon but in reality is more liberal with the truth on a whole spectrum of issues.

Apparently Newsvine's system has a particular problem with those links because a half dozen attempts to link to Examiner have never worked but other stories seem to seed with no problem at all.

For many years claims of liberal media have made me laugh, since none of the mainstream American news media will publish stories about Monsanto's privatizing of our commodity crops and the feeding experiment we've become with it's genetically modified food.

That includes the New York Times who have an occasional OpEd from industry or industry representatives in government roles, but nothing from a critical view.

What makes censorship a very powerful tool of propaganda is that it keeps people from seeing the facts that might allow them to object to a particular position that's being promoted.

The newest series of these omission campaigns involves the trial of Bradley Manning, who has been charged with treason and espionage in the largest leak of government documents in American history.

One might think that since the New York Times has used the leaked documents to produce hundreds of headline stories they might be able to muster a reporter to cover the legal proceedings of man accused of making them available.

Bradly Manning's case is historic for a whole litany of reasons, from the Collateral Murder video exposing US War crimes to his torture over many months of what is now two plus years pre-trial imprisonment.

There's been a lot of speculation that the unprecedented treatment of Manning is related to the US government's pursuit of Julian Assange and Wikileaks, which is another historic case of pursuing a foreign journalist with a whole of government investigation unmatched in American history.

While the Times and others have cherry picked leaks to create two years worth of scoop stories they have interestingly failed to support the journalistic principles of media to expose government wrongdoing, failed to defend Wikileaks and failed to send a reporter to cover Bradley Manning's case.

It's not as theough traveling to Fort Meade in the area just beyond the Washington D.C. beltway is a task that puts an enormous strain on the pool of reporters in their Washington bureau.

There's no argument to be made for the case of Manning lacking National significance as the leak is widely acknowledged as more significant than the Pentagon Papers.

The only excuse there is for ignoring the story or running AP blurbs is that the New York Times has an appetite for leaks like Judith Miller selling the Iraq War but not exposing the criminal elements who challenge America's covert power.

Here are the series of links that give the omissions by the Times far better coverage and my temptation to speculate about censorship and bias against specific site links can just be the notation of a problem that's peculiarly site specific..